Just a few things here...
As everyone thinks I am Silly and stupid and ignorant and a Poopy-head, I have the following to say:
Oh relax, Rich, I don't think your a poopy head for real... you know I was joking. You have some good points and I acknowledged those.
I plead the fifth on the elephant trunk though...
So, because the Supreme court has not done a definition yet, it does not matter. Hmmmm, has the Supreme court defined every word used in legal documents? Nope. I guess I can never make another arguemnet ever again. Shut the Study down now.
Now, now. I didn't say that the issue doesn't matter. It obviously matters to you, and I respect that. I am saying that legal definitions are what makes or breaks something being constitutional or not, not our chosen dictionary definitions. And no, not all words have to be defined by the supreme court, but words in question or words that are pertinent to the law do need to be defined. A good example would be the "gay marriage ban" where the legal definition of the word "marriage" was on the table. And technically with the lawsuits over the amendment, it still is.
Now, you said that you could PROVE that having the word "God" on our currency is a violation of the Bill of rights, but the reality is you can't prove anything until the supreme court decides to define the word as it pertains to the context of being on currency.
That being said, you can still make the arguement that you don't think it should be on there, that is fine. But proving something unconstitutional is another story.
So, I guess we don't have to shut donw the study after all.. :ultracool
The notion that Buddhism doesn't have a "god" is kinda silly, too
Well, not really when you consider Zen Buddhism. They don't confirm or deny "God." But thats another conversation.
1) I've researched a bit more into Freemasonry, and I must now concede that it predates Christianity considerably. At least, that's what Thomas Paine thought.
The Masonic belief is that basically all religions are a spin-off somehow on from their belief system. They take credit for people like Euclid, Plato, and Pythagerous. They believe that Masonic order predates christianity all the way to King Solomon.
However, just because one believes something, that doesn't make it true. There is little evidence to support this belief, especially considering that the records of the first Masons post date christianity by hundreds of years.
Your right about Thomas Paine, and a lot of Masons today follow this belief. That's probably another discussion as well, though.
) As much as I enjoy the veiled sniping being directed at me, I would be interested in knowing where exactly I used personal attacks on anyone (except possibly in the case of MGM, whose arguments-based-on-agenda were plainly obvious).
I know that this probably wasn't directed towards me, but regardless I just wanted to clarify that there is nothing veiled from me here. I was pretty clear, and I wasn't trying to attack you personally, call you names, or anything. All I had said negative was that although I often like what you have to say, I sometimes dislike your method of argueing. Not really an insult, just an opinion. Hey, sometimes I dislike the way I argue too. So I hope there is no ill feelings there.
***
Anyways, I have made my arguements. I think that any more discussion from me would be beating a dead horse at this point, so I'm outta here.
Thanks for the discussion...
Paul
